I have worked with longer lens with IS, and without. For low light and long range shots, the IS is wonderful. Why raise the ISO and risk grainy images? Also, tripods are nice, unless you are out hiking all day, or moving alot (like at sports activites).

Have a Nikkor 80-400 VR lens and like it quite well. With incresing arthritis in my hands and thus loosing some stability even with heavier gear, I find using the 80-400 fantastic. This focal range also allows for ease of carrying when walking around festivities, fairs, car shows, etc.

I have worked with several Canon IS lenses in the short to mid tele ranges (28-135, 24-105) and longer telephoto (70-200, 300)ranges in both nature and sports and have found worthwhile benefits of IS in every lens I have used. The extra cost is well worth it. If an IS lens is available in the range I am looking for I will take a little extra time to save up for it every time.

I've never worked with Image Stabilization and I'm not worried about it. I shoot lots of action pics (like hockey and shows) and never had problems using ISO 800 and over with a tripod. And using Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro 4-5.6 all of this is in settings.

Submitted by Robert Christopulos (not verified) on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm

I can get wonderful results in fairly low light areas without camera shake and with fairly low ISOs. All of this without sacrificing quality, lugging around tripods or violating policy by using flash. I defy anyone to duplicate what I do without image stabilization.

I have used Canon's 75-300mm IS. As an amateur, I am continuously learning about photography. At first use, I would sometimes get blurry results & couldn't understand why. During a recent trip to the zoo, I decided to manually focus all of my shots & ended up with better results. But the image stabilization definitely helps me & my hand shake. Probably too much coffee in the A.M.

It's not a panacea for all low-light situations (it doesn't freeze moving subjects, for instance), but for the ones that it will work with, it provides a 2 or more stop handheld advantage. Coupled with the almost noise-free ISO 400 performance of today's DSLR sensors, you no longer have to invest in pricey fast glass to work in low light. The fastest zooms I have are f3.5 or so, and I have a handful of fast f1.8 primes for those situations that demand them.

I shot a series of images and compared those with IS turned on to those with IS turned off. It made the most significant difference handheld at the shutter "limit" for handheld shots, i.e. 1/50 for 50mm lens.

We never had I.S. in the "old days" of film users and my current DSLR does not employ it either in lens or in body. However, as with every innovation which makes our lives easier, I think it's a wonderful idea. My only reservation is the possibility that the diciplines that help to mold a person into a fine photographer will fall by the wayside and be replaced with sloppy practices.